Florida Property

Pierson v. Post is the foundational case on the acquisition of property rights in wild animals (ferae naturae). It established that mere pursuit of a wild animal does not create a property right; actual capture or mortal wounding is required. The case remains the starting point for virtually every Property law course in American legal education.

Johnson v. M'Intosh established the discovery doctrine as the foundation of American property law, holding that European discovery gave the discovering nation title to the land, subject only to the Native Americans' right of occupancy. The case remains one of the most important and most criticized decisions in property law, forming the legal basis for federal authority over Native American lands. It is the foundational case for understanding how property ownership was initially distributed in the United States.

Armory v. Delamirie established the foundational principle that a finder of personal property has superior title against all the world except the true owner. The case also established the evidentiary rule that when a wrongdoer fails to produce evidence within their control, the court will presume the evidence was of the highest value. It remains the leading case on finders' rights in both English and American property law.

Kelo v. City of New London broadly interpreted the 'public use' requirement of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, holding that economic development constitutes a valid public use justifying the exercise of eminent domain, even when the property is transferred to private parties. The decision was enormously controversial and prompted legislative reforms in over 40 states to restrict the use of eminent domain for private economic development.

Penn Central established the multi-factor balancing test that remains the primary framework for analyzing regulatory takings claims under the Fifth Amendment. The three Penn Central factors — economic impact on the claimant, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action — continue to be the default test for determining when a government regulation 'goes too far' and constitutes a taking requiring just compensation.

Lucas established a categorical rule for regulatory takings: when a regulation deprives a property owner of all economically beneficial use of the land, it constitutes a per se taking requiring just compensation, unless the prohibited use was already restricted by background principles of nuisance or property law. The case carved out an important exception to the Penn Central balancing test for total regulatory takings.

Village of Euclid is the landmark decision establishing the constitutionality of comprehensive zoning as a valid exercise of the police power. The case upheld the power of municipalities to divide land into use districts and impose restrictions on building heights, lot sizes, and land uses. It remains the foundational case for American zoning law and land use regulation.

Shelley v. Kraemer held that judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants constitutes state action in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Court did not invalidate the covenants themselves as private agreements, it held that courts could not enforce them. The decision was a critical precursor to the civil rights movement and fundamentally changed American housing law.

Javins v. First National Realty revolutionized landlord-tenant law by recognizing an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. The decision rejected the traditional common law property approach to leases in favor of a modern contract-based approach, holding that a landlord's failure to maintain the premises in habitable condition breaches an implied warranty that entitles tenants to withhold rent. The case transformed the legal relationship between landlords and tenants across the country.

Reste Realty v. Cooper extended the doctrine of constructive eviction to cases where a landlord's failure to remedy a defective condition renders leased premises substantially unsuitable for the purpose for which they were leased. The case is significant for applying constructive eviction to commercial tenancies and for recognizing that a landlord's implied covenant of quiet enjoyment can be breached by conditions arising from common areas or building defects, not just by the landlord's affirmative acts.